ArticleBMJ open2020
Exploratory study of staff perceptions of shift safety in the critical care unit and routinely available data on workforce, patient and organisational factors.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The current situation of intensive care units in Chinese mainland: A nationwide survey.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- Development and Psychometric Testing of the Optimizing Context in Assessing Sedation in ICU (OCEAN-ICU) Instrument to Optimize Sedation Use in Intensive Care.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Spatial equity and factors associated with intensive care unit bed allocation in China.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore bedside professional reported (BPR) perceptions of safety in intensive care staff and the relationships between BPR safety, staffing, patient and work environment characteristics.
designAn exploratory study of self-recorded staff perceptions of shift safety and routinely collected data.
settingA large teaching hospital comprising 70 critical care beds.
participantsAll clinical staff working in adult critical care.
interventionsStaff recorded whether their shift felt 'safe, unsafe or very unsafe' for 29 consecutive days. We explored these perceptions and relationships between them and routine data on staffing, patient and environmental characteristics. OUTCOME MEASURES: Relationships between BPR safety and staffing, patient and work environment characteristics.
results2836 BPR scores were recorded over 29 consecutive days (response rate 57.7%). Perceptions of safety varied between staff, including within the same shift. There was no correlation between perceptions of safety and two measures of staffing: care hours per patient day (r=0.13 p=0.108) and Safecare Allocate (r=-0.19 p=0.013). We found a significant, positive relationship between perceptions of safety and the percentage of level 3 (most severely ill) patients (r=0.32, p=0.0001). There was a significant inverse relationship between perceptions of safety and the percentage of level 1 patients on a shift (r=-0.42, p<0.0001). Perceptions of safety correlated negatively with increased numbers of patients (r=-0.44, p=0.0006) and higher percentage of patients located side rooms (r=0.63, p<0.0001). We found a significant relationship between perceptions of safety and the percentage of staff with a specialist critical care course (r=0.42. p=0.0001).
conclusionExisting staffing models, which are primarily influenced by staff-to-patient ratios, may not be sensitive to patient need. Other factors may be important drivers of staff perceptions of safety and should be explored further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.